The Americans are repeating to the Trump that they are the greatest losers of globalization. And that the rest of the world is still exploiting them. Meanwhile, it is not world trade rules that are unfair to the US, it is unfair to have an economic order that it has established.
Since Donald Trump became the American President, the US has had constant pretensions to the world. International trade rules are supposed to be extremely unfavorable to the United States, which is why the American working class is becoming poorer and the middle class is becoming increasingly narrower. The Chinese and Germans, on the other hand, are gaining by selling their products to the Americans. When you listen to the message that has been drifting from Washington for a year and a half, you will come to the conclusion that the US, a global power and one of the richest countries on earth, is, in fact, the worst affected country in the global economic order. African countries, whose natural resources are being brutally exploited by Western companies, are not affected, as are workers from South-East Asia, who sew cheap clothes for a penny so that young Americans can buy themselves new clothes every week, and developing countries, which, as a result of sudden outflows of capital, every now and then find themselves somewhere in the world in a financial crisis. No, the greatest loser of globalization is, in fact, the United States.

The US has imposed this system on others
This is all the funnier because it was the US that dominated the post-war world order. First, they contributed to the creation of the Breton Woods system, which consisted roughly of the fact that the dollar was convertible into gold and the other currencies into dollars at a fixed exchange rate. The US has therefore ensured that the dollar plays a key role in the Western economy. When Breton Woods ceased to be beneficial to the US and maintaining the gold parity became uncomfortable, it unilaterally withdrew, suspending the exchangeability of the dollar for gold. Nevertheless, the dollar has maintained its position as a global reserve currency to this day, allowing the United States to borrow very cheaply – much more cheaply than countries with similar debt ratios to GDP. The U.S. also secured a majority vote in the International Monetary Fund, which in the post-war period was crucial for the economic expansion of Pax Americana and forced developing countries to adopt the economic principles contained in the Washington Consensus (in exchange for loans). The United States also had an important say in the creation of the World Trade Organisation and in the finalization of the rounds of negotiations that regulated further areas of world trade. The US also maintains several tax havens on its territory, the most famous of which is the state of Delaware. Not to mention that, as a global maritime power, they control the most important trade routes in the Atlantic and the Pacific. So if global economic governance is unfair to the US, it can only be complained about, because it is they who created it. The problem is that world trade rules are not unfair to the US, but the economic order that it has established in its own country is unfair.

Why so much poverty in the USA?
It is enough to look at the basic macroeconomic indicator that shows the country’s level of wealth, i.e. GDP per capita (including purchasing power parity), to see that the global economic order is rather benevolent for the USA. In 2017, the GDP amounted to almost 60 thousand dollars and was much higher than in all the large Western countries. In Germany, GDP per capita was 51 000 US dollars, in Sweden 50 000 US dollars, in Canada 47 000 US dollars, and in Japan 43 000 US dollars. These differences are even more pronounced when one considers the individual states, such as New York and Massachusetts (each with $75,000 per capita). If the Western countries were to become states of the USA, Germany would rank 32nd in terms of GDP per capita. Just over Louisiana, whose enormous social and environmental problems Arlie Hochschild described in her book “Aliens in her own Country”. Sweden would be under Louisiana and France would be 45th between Arizona and South Carolina. The rich Netherlands, however, would be in 27th place, just above Kansas, to whom Thomas Frank devoted the book “What about this Kansas?

So the richest EU countries in terms of national income would be among the poorer US states. And yet there are no reports of the gigantic areas of poverty in Germany or Sweden, nor is there an explosion of social pathologies in the Netherlands. The problem of the USA, therefore, is not the lack of wealth caused by an unfair global order, because there is so much wealth in the USA. The problem of the USA is the pathological economic and social order which it has created itself.

The opening of large scissors

One thing to agree with Donald Trump is that, indeed, the last decades have not been good for working Americans, especially those on lower incomes. Since the 1970s, their incomes have stagnated, but poverty rates have risen sharply. The Nobel Prize winner for Economics, Angus Deaton, presented it perfectly in his book “The Great Escape”. In 1974, the poorest 20% of American households had an average income of US$18,000 per year. In 2010, their real income fell to USD 15,000. In 1974, families in the 20-40 percent range had an average income of 37 thousand dollars, which was exactly the same as in 2010. The poverty rate in 1973 was 10 percent in the USA but in 2010. – The percentage of people under 18 living below the poverty line has risen from 15% to 22% since then, and although the poverty line has not actually been changed since the inflation rate has only been adjusted for it since the 1960s.

Where, then, did all the wealth created in the USA since the 1970s disappear? It reached the richest. Between 1974 and 2010, the average income of the wealthiest 20% of households increased from 120,000 dollars to 187,000 dollars and 5% of households of the wealthiest 5%. – At the end of the 1970s, the wealthiest 1% of American taxpayers had 8% of all income in the U.S., and in 2010 – from the U.S. $130,000 to the U.S. $313,000. – already 19%.

In 2015, the wealthiest 20% of Americans had an average income 8.3% higher than that of their poorest compatriots. Meanwhile, in Germany it is only 4.4 times higher, in the Netherlands it is 4.6 times higher and in Denmark, it is 3.7 times higher. In the same year, 17% of the US population lived below the relative poverty line. It was only 9.5% in Germany, 8% in the Netherlands and 5.5% in Denmark.

The American dream is a dead body
The impoverishment of the American working class and the narrowing of its middle class are therefore due not to the supposedly unfair world economic order for the US, but to the enormous inequalities there that exploded in the 1970s and are still growing. There is no shortage of wealth in the US – there is no fair distribution of income. Worse still, the low level of public services and social security makes these already very large inequalities even more important. Because where there are no decent public services and where they need to be bought out on their own, money becomes particularly important. The lack of a universal public health service means that millions of Americans do not have health insurance, and the minimum wage that has been in place for years weakens the bargaining position of unskilled workers. Through paid higher education, it is impossible for many Americans from less affluent families to obtain a university degree, and social mobility suffers. Rutger Bregman in “Utopia for the Realists” even said that among the Western countries the possibility of fulfilling the American dream is the lowest in… The United States of America.

Trumpet increases inequality
Does Donald Trump want to do anything about this injustice that is oppressing the lower classes of US society? On the contrary, its reforms are going in the opposite direction. His great tax reform has reduced the taxes of the richest. He did not succeed in eliminating Obamacare, so he at least deregulated it, thereby lowering minimum health insurance standards. Since the beginning of its term of office, it has also been trying to overpower the EPA, the environmental agency that ensures that environmental regulations are complied with in the states particularly exploited by mining companies. Thanks to his “efforts”, its activity halved in 2017. Trump has therefore done a classic tail turning of the cat – blaming the US working class for the bad situation throughout the world – but fervently defending the interests of those who are really to blame. What’s worse, many people are getting bogged down in this wasted trick.

Israel as an enemy was chosen perfectly well. It is ruled by right-wing populists, so it was possible to accurately predict a mirror mechanism of sharp reactions. And it is precisely these reactions of Kaczynski who are concerned about.

Nothing consolidates power as well as war. The war breaks national divisions and removes all claims of power from citizens. War also helps to distinguish between “patriots” and “traitors”. If your goal is absolute power and the costs do not matter to you, call up a war. Of course,”in the right thing”. The best thing you can’t lose. This is how rulers did in antiquity, and so do rulers today: Putin (in Chechnya, Crimea and Ukraine) and Erdogan (running the war against the Kurds and recently entering Syria).

It is easy to provoke a real war when you are a superpower or a parochial. The powers conduct their wars on their terms. In turn wars of parasitic parasites go through the world unnoticed, so they can be fought for a long time and with impunity. Unfortunately, Polish Jaroslaw Kaczynski does not meet neither the first nor the second criterion. It is too small to lead the war alone – such as Russia or Turkey. Too large and too centrally located in Europe to create a peripheral conflict with a neighbour. There is also no national minority that could be oppressed, there is no small uprising that would stifle the “patriotic government of national rescue” with the support of the patriots. As a NATO member and part of the European Union, it has numerous limitations. A real war is therefore out of the question, but a symbolic war can successfully play the same role.

Jaroslaw Kaczynski needs such a symbolic war. The first attempt was to confront Brussels. The PiS government was doing what it could to provoke a strong reaction from the other side. His official propaganda, their politicians and diplomats attacked Brussels officials and hoped that they would respond with aggression. Dormant. The reaction was firm, but still calm. Neither did society buy this war. The PR workers working for the authorities at the government camp finally got to know that Poles placed to choose between national pride and European funds can choose the latter. Thus PR-people started to look for another war. And wonder who would best fit the role of a Poland and Polish antagonist. Brussels bureaucracy is hard to love, but it is equally difficult to hate it. National states are a much more grateful target of the attack, because nationalism plays symmetrically on both sides, it can be quickly escalated to defend itself later:”You see what are they doing to us? The figure of the enemy is necessary in order to reliably play (again) an innocent sacrifice and consolidate the citizens around the highest values of dignity and honour.

If an enemy is to be a country, it is best not to be economically dependent on it. Sorrowful economic sanctions can have an impact on the standard of living of the sovereign. Germany is therefore unsuitable. Nor should it be a country that could actually endanger us militarily. The fear of Poles’ consequences would eliminate the desired effect. Thus, Russia is also falling apart. It would be a good thing if war hatred could be based on real resentment: barely healed wounds, newly cured complexes, mutual resentment, smoldering resentments, historical reluctance – this is the ideal. So it fell on Israel.

The current conflict is not a strategic mistake by Jaroslaw Kaczynski or an accident at work. Israel was provoked into a symbolic war with premeditation. What does this thesis support?

Firstly, the Act on the IPN (Existence of National Memory) was written in such a way that it is possible, depending on the needs, to show its two faces. For internal use, we should say that it is a correct proposal to remove the notion of “Polish extermination camps” from world debates. Everybody will agree that it is right! And for external use, irritate the Jews to the highest possible extent, suggesting prison sentences for any accusations of Poles for murders. This provision of the law was supposed to bring Israel to rage.

Secondly, the amendment was passed on the eve of the International Holocaust Remembrance Day. It is difficult to choose a better moment to trigger a reaction.

Thirdly, Prime Minister Morawiecki talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu about the necessary consultations on the bill, after which the Senate voted through it without amendments. The Israeli Ambassador Anna Azari was invited by the Speaker of the Senate for talks two days later, when there was no longer anything to talk about. Much has therefore been done to maximise the effect of the destruction by the IPN Act. Not only has the public opinion in Israel been distracted, but Israel’s diplomacy has been humiliated in all its ways.

Such a war cannot be lost.

The effect of the Act is that the phrase “Polish death camps” was written 25 million times on Twitter itself on 27 January. If you sum up all the social media, the numbers are cosmic. And the Polish government did not prepare any response. The reader interested in the subject has no chance of learning historical truth, reads only about controversies. Total embarrassment. It does not matter at all, because it was not the aim of legislation to fight defamation. No information material has been produced on this subject. Instructions for Polish diplomacy were not even sent on time. Nothing. In internal propaganda Poles will be able to say that this is about “Polish death camps”. And present the homeland in her favorite poses of the eternal victim of aggressors or, better still, international conspiracies. And because Israel claims something completely different, it does not matter at all. No one looks at details in the patriotic rush. Ideally. In the world they don’t understand why Poles do such things. In Poland, nobody understands what they claim in the world. It is also great, because such a war cannot be lost!

Israel as an enemy was chosen perfectly well. It is ruled by nationalist right-wing populists. The mechanism of official reactions and social indignation could have been accurately predicted. They are even more patriotic than Poles are. The Knesset is already working on a symmetrical law. Poles are thrown with pebbles on the beach in Israel, saying:”A good Pole is a dead Pole. In Poland,”Super Express” prints the title:”That’s what Jews from Poland want: forests, factories, even a trillions of gold. In public television there are jokes about Jews in the crematoria. In Zielona Góra, on a plaque commemorating the Nazis’ burning of the synagogue on a crystal night, the following inscription appears:”Jude raus”. We impose ourselves a terrible murder of anti-Semitic and silent associates of Hitler. But well, the spiral of mutual hatred set off. All of them play roles in it.

Big global internet companies will have two hours to remove terrorist content, or they will face serious penalties – such changes will be proposed today in New York at a meeting hosted jointly by British Prime Minister Theresa May.

The current 24-hour limit for removing terrorist content from a social networking platform is to be reduced to 2 hours.

Today in New York, a meeting of several European leaders from network giants such as Facebook, Microsoft, and Twitter on combating terrorist propaganda online.

Theresa May wants these companies to develop technological solutions to ensure that terrorists’ content does not reach the web at all.

The Prime Minister, who, as former Minister of the United Kingdom, has had a great deal of experience in combating terrorism, has already supported France’s proposal to create mechanisms to make technology companies that do not take action against harmful content on their websites legally liable.

Now she wants to go one step further by encouraging the technology industry to use their most talented people to stop terrorist propaganda in the network.

The proposal to shorten the response time to such content to two hours goes much further than the current requirements of most European authorities, which demand the removal of harmful content within 24 hours – something companies such as Google, Facebook or Twitter are still struggling to do.

The British Prime Minister, together with the President of France, Emanuel Macron, and the Prime Minister of Italy, Paolo Gentilonim, will be co-hosting the New York meeting, which will take place only a few days after 30 people were injured at Parsons Green London Metro Station in a terrorist attack.

The organizers also intend to call on other world leaders to join the fight against extremism on the Internet. The meeting will be attended by representatives of network giants such as Facebook, Microsoft or Twitter, as well as large advertising agencies such as the British WPP.

Even before the meeting, in a speech before the UN General Assembly, Prime Minister May intends to share her own experience of visiting hospitals where she met the victims of this year’s terrorist attacks in London and Manchester. According to the excerpts from her speeches given to journalists, May wants to tell the world’s leaders that’ resistance alone is not enough’.

The UK Prime Minister is convinced that online companies can do more than they do today to’ prevent harmful content from being distributed by groups like ISIS that promote terrorism and teach them how to build bombs or attack passers-by with cars’.

Above all, however, Theresa May wants these companies to “develop new technological solutions that will make sure that such content does not reach the web at all”.

Of course, the Prime Minister is aware that terrorists will quickly adapt to the new conditions. As she says:”Terrorist groups are aware that links to their propaganda material are rapidly disappearing from the Internet, so they are focusing on distributing them as quickly as possible in order to anticipate security measures.

The Internet industry needs to go further and move faster and faster, focusing on automating the detection and deletion of terrorist content, and creating new technological solutions that will make sure that such content does not reach the web at all,” says Theresa May in her speech.

The spokesperson of the Prime Minister told journalists that the British authorities are working with technology companies that are’ making the right changes in the right direction’, but’ there is still much to be done’. We want to continue this cooperation,” said the Ombudsman. However, after the meeting with President Macron in June, we have come to the conclusion that we must also be prepared to hold these companies to legal responsibility if we do not make the progress we expect. Generally speaking, this is about financial penalties.

Large online companies have already announced changes. Google and YouTube are increasingly using technologies that enable the automatic identification of videos that transmit suspicious content.

Twitter suspended 299,649 user accounts in the first half of this year, 75 percent of them before the first tweet was published. Facebook representatives inform you that the company is working on artificial intelligence, which will automatically detect terrorist content.

Companies have already taken many steps – including by increasing the employment of those who find illegal content on their websites – but the serious problem is that in different countries different interpretations of what constitutes’ terrorist content’ or hate speech are different.

Experts also warn that the demand for online companies to react more sharply and remove content posted by jihadists has the other side: it is to hand over to private entities the whole area of policy related to such material, i. e. activities that have so far been supervised by the legislator and government agencies.

In December 2016, representatives of Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube wrote in a joint statement on the blog that whenever they were alerted, they took’ quick action’, but they also made it clear that they would protect the’ privacy of their users and their’ ability to speak freely and safely’.

We want to involve a broad range of interested parties in these activities so that, together, we can prevent terrorist content from being distributed on the Internet in a transparent, informed and responsible manner, while respecting human rights,” they wrote.

This problem will also be one of the main topics at the G7 meeting on 20 October.

Technological companies are moving in the right direction, but they are doing too little,” says a representative of the British Government. They have the heaviest minds in the world at their disposal. They should focus on what is really important, namely stopping terrorism and violence. We want them to prevent the distribution and spread of such information online.

In his speech to the UN General Assembly, Theresa May will say:”As Prime Minister, I was already in too many hospitals and I saw too many innocent people murdered in my home country. I am thinking of the hundreds of thousands of victims of terrorism in various countries around the world, and I am thinking of their friends, families, and communities that have been destroyed by this terrible evil. And I say: quite enough!

The Irish airline revealed a list of all the routes that will be cancelled in the coming weeks. The cost to airlines can reach up to 25 million euros.

Ryanair has published the list on its website up to and including 28 October. Customers are supposed to receive e-mails with proposals for changing the flight date or returning the money.

“It’s an obvious mess, I take responsibility for it, and I have to clean it up,” said Michael O’ Leary, President of Ryanair. Did I damage Ryanair’s reputation by cancellations? Yes, but I prefer to do it by cancelling 2% of our flights than by significantly delaying 40%.

The head of the company at a press conference also announced that the carrier is preparing to pay compensation, which may cost him as much as 20 million euros. Another EUR 5 million is the loss of unused tickets. According to analysts, total costs may be even higher.

Except in exceptional cases of random flight situations, EU rules require airlines to give passengers two weeks’ notice of cancelled flights. Otherwise, they must pay them 250 euros each for flights of up to 1500 km and 400 euros for longer flights within the EU.

Ryanair says that the problems are related to the change of holiday plans for pilots. However, his rival, the Norwegian line, says he took over more than 140 pilots. O’ Leary says that less than 100 pilots left Ryanair and completed the crew… also by purchasing staff to his rival.

In the industry, it is said that pilots are moving from Irish to competition, not least because they are in a better position there than five-year contracts in Ryanair. President Michael O’ Leary confirmed that he offered 10,000 Euro bonus on employment to cope with the growing number of passengers.

The dispute between Ryanair and Norwegian has also translated into plans to combine the offers of both carriers. Discussions on this issue were halted yesterday. Recently, Norwegian has concluded such an agreement with easyJet, which concerns long-haul flights.

According to one Irish analyst quoted by Reuter, cancelled flights will hit Ryanair’s results – it may lose 2.3%. The profit after tax projected for this year at EUR 1.479 billion.

“More dangerous than atomic bombs”,”naming the demon”,”the end of the human race”. It is not about defining another terrorist organization or the specter of a pandemic of an unknown deadly virus. These are warnings of the greatest contemporary visionaries before the creation of artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence, AI), which are increasingly advanced. Many call them the “new arms race”. Is there anything to fear? Elon Musk, the most famous contemporary visionary and brilliant entrepreneur, became famous as no one else for carrying out projects that seemed beyond the reach of others. He created private space rockets or self-paced cars. His goal, as he openly admits, is to enable people to colonize other planets. Only in this way, as it claims, humanity will survive in danger of cataclysms that threaten it. Among them, in addition to the impact of meteorite and nuclear war, he mentions the creation of artificial intelligence. Why is this one technology of the future so terrifying Musk? When asked how it could endanger us, she mysteriously admits:”I don’t know. But, as CNBC added:”In the film’ Terminator’ (where the robots exterminate people – ed.) no one expected similar terminator effects”. Until people see robots walking on the streets and killing people, they won’t know how to react (to the AI uprising – ed.), because it seems so unearthly – he added. Professor Stephen Hawking, a different genius, and visionary of our times are of a similar opinion. “The development of entirely artificial intelligence could end the human race,” he warned as early as 2014. As he said, the creation of an AI at a level equal to that of a human being can “take control of itself and begin to reprogramme and improve at an ever-accelerating rate”. People, limited by slow biological evolution, will not be able to compete and will be driven away – he added. Exceeding the so-called singularity point, in which machines would surpass people intellectually, could even lead to the reversal of hierarchy and the initiation of work on changing people by intelligent machines.

Science is increasingly less and less fiction In this is where the heart of the fear of artificial intelligence lies. That the breakthrough technology created to help mankind, to become independent and, like any other form of intelligence on Earth, will start to put its own interests before those of others – also people. So far, such visions have remained the domain of science fiction. In real life, it is more of a daily struggle to deal with the thoughtlessness of the machines around us, from computers that can hang themselves in a simple operation to coffee machines that make it fill up the full water tank. But the work on real artificial intelligence is progressing, it’s getting more and more advanced, and many commentators are calling it “a new arms race”. It is attended mainly by some of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, with the United States and China at the forefront. Meanwhile, at the end of July, a document was published which impressed the Americans: the official government official “Plan for the development of the next generation of artificial intelligence” issued by China. A plan that is remarkable for government documents, but at the same time, it is a serious presentation of a vision for the near future. The vision that the Chinese authorities themselves want to make a reality. In this document, on several dozen pages of Beijing, he presented a vision of how to make China the world leader in artificial intelligence by 2030. It has been assumed that over the next decade, this research sector is expected to be worth $60 billion (40 times more than today) and artificial intelligence will become “the main driver of China’s industrial and economic transformation”.

What is artificial intelligence actually and what are the benefits of its development? It is a technology that is intended to enable the creation of computer programs capable of performing at least part of the functions of the human mind that cannot be programmed in advance. So it is to make decisions in the absence of full information, to reason logically, to advanced analysis, and above all – to independently acquire new knowledge and learn from mistakes. In practice, AI will primarily serve to improve economic efficiency. “Thinking” software will help you improve productivity and optimize your work in almost every sector: finding out where resources are wasted, program the optimal production process or transport mode, or indicate the best return on your investment. Another benefit of AI is automation. “Thinking” software will be able to function in society – to drive vehicles, carry out construction or cleaning work, operate hotlines, etc. In an ageing society, this can be invaluable both as a supplement to the growing shortage of labour and as a help in medical and nursing care for the elderly. China’s industry and government seem to share two common priorities in the development of artificial intelligence. The first is the development of industrial production using robotic-assisted robots. Currently, around 30% of Chinese patents for this technology are now in robotics, just like in the USA,” he says. The second priority is healthcare technologies, which enable e. g. the creation of exoskeletons enabling physically disabled people to walk, the wider use of robots in operations, and above all, the ceding to AI of simple diagnostics,” he adds. In the long term, it is actually hard to establish any limits on the potential of artificial intelligence: they can become university lecturers, study space explorers, impartial judges or excellent soldiers. Moreover, AI can begin to make progress in technology development itself, perhaps achieving what is beyond the reach of the human mind. Advanced artificial intelligence will completely change the human economy and the life of societies.

Blef or a realistic plan? But the Chinese program, not without rightness, was accepted by Western commentators with a skepticism. Firstly, because China regularly publishes ambitious projects in various areas, but their implementation is mostly – especially in the research and development sector – failing to confront a politicised bureaucratic machine. Secondly, China has been suffering for decades from the problem of the outflow of the most talented researchers abroad, rather than benefiting from attracting the best to itself. Currently, they are trying to remedy this situation by increasing, among other things, funding of science and increasing fees, as well as opening their research centers in other countries, even in the famous American Silicon Valley. However, the effects of these actions will not occur overnight. On the other hand, China also has a comparative advantage over the West in several respects, which may be very important. Above all, it is a far weaker protection of personal data, with the world’s largest databases at the same time. And in the development of artificial intelligence, in addition to talented scientists and high-speed computers, it is the powerful databases that are the most important. The work on AI is largely based on learning to analyze data and learn to learn from mistakes. The larger the databases, the more material a computer can “practice” on. Thanks to this, the Chinese are already making the fastest progress in the development of speech (iFlytek) or face recognition systems (Megvia, SenseTime). The authorities themselves are contributing to this, as they are reluctant to make the databases available to the public companies working on AI. And so, the police in Guangzhou’s 14-million-strong city of Guangzhou made the videos available from street cameras, while the authorities of the 7-million-strong Fuzhou have made 80 exabytes (thousand terabytes) of heart echo recordings available – the companies that have received them – to create software for self-diagnosing irregularities. Secondly, Chinese worship for central planning can theoretically pass the exam in this situation. With huge projects of strategic importance to the authorities, state aid in pooling resources and efforts can be helpful – similarly, the United States has acted when implementing the New Deal program, the Marshall Plan or the Moon landing program. The accumulation of large financial resources for research and development of AIs can also help to bring together the most talented researchers, who will be tempted to pay higher salaries or access larger databases than in their own countries. Finally, while centralization is limited to prioritizing, it does not scare away huge private capital either – even so, the thickest fish of Chinese business, such as Alibaba, Baidu, and Tencent, have already been involved in the artificial intelligence work.

First victories of the machines meanwhile, the world’s work on artificial intelligence is another spectacular success. For several years now, so-called chatbots or programs have been tested, which are to learn through virtual conversation with real people. The task facing the chatbots has been one thing for years: the Turing test, which is to deceive the interlocutor that he is a living person. So far, the best programs of this type have been created in the West and Japan: Mitsuku, Rose, Right Click, and Poncho. Even though they have already reached such a high level that it is possible to talk to them with interest for hours, none of them have succeeded in the Turing test (although they are getting closer and closer). Chatbots have become very popular also in China, where millions of people have converted to Xiaoice, Xiaobing, and BabyQ. However, in an undemocratic state, their actions turned out to be risky, as was seen this summer. After the assimilated opinions of the chatbots started to express politically incorrect issues, Xiaobing and BabyQ were suspended. It can be said, then, that it was already a kind of rebellion of the chatbots. A more spectacular manifestation of the capabilities of already existing intelligent programs is their results in games. Computers have already surpassed man, among others, in the ability to play checkers and chess, and recently also in the complicated weiqi, a Chinese game most commonly known as him. The three-chat duel between Google’s AlphaGo program and the world’s best player, the brilliant Ke Jie in the spring, watched thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of spectators. Already after the first fierce gameplay, the arcymist was shocked and admitted that the program made decisions that a human player would never have taken. Thanks to the ability to quickly learn the program, the subsequent parts were becoming more and more one-sided, and the human arcymist eventually lost the whole duel to zero. But the innocent borders are just a prelude to what awaits us in the future. In 2016, the AI seed has already defeated military pilots in fighter simulators. The tests were simple and marked so as not to draw hasty conclusions from them, but doubts remained. It is precisely the vision of the military use of artificial intelligence, especially after the drones have been given it more and more perfect, that seems to be what frightens the most.

Regulate before it is too late But the way to achieve peculiarity in the work on AI is far away and unknown. Meanwhile, as Dr. Hayashi points out, work on AI should be worried not so much about the rebellion of intelligent machines is about the explosion of unemployment. As a result of the progressing automation, mass unemployment, especially among low-skilled workers, is an obvious threat. Unfortunately, the evolution of artificial intelligence is faster than the human ability to adapt to the labour market,” he adds. Another of the most serious threats that Dr. Hayashi sees at the moment is the political use of new technology, as was already evident from the blocking of impenetrable Chinese cottages. In China, artificial intelligence will only be able to develop as far as the Communist Party is not threatened. Thus, a limited version of it will be developed, affecting human life according to the needs of the authorities,” he says. I wonder, however, whether the same Chinese can be permanently “programmed” to “behave appropriately” – he points out. It is worth mentioning that despite its comparisons to Terminator, the AI is also being conducted by Elon Musk, mentioned in the introduction. How is this possible? As he explains himself, he invested in this research to “keep an eye on what is happening in his work on artificial intelligence”. Above all, however, it calls for’ Everything (cars, airplanes, food, medicines, etc.).), which is dangerous for society, is regulated. II should also be”. The visionary thus points out that his concern is not so much to develop artificial intelligence as to do it in an uncontrolled, secret and irresponsible way. see, therefore, that this is above all an appeal to countries such as China and the US to make progress on such a dangerous and incalculable technology publicly available and socially responsible. Together with a group of other scientists, including Stephen Hawking, he even created a set of principles for conducting further research on AI, called the “Asimolar Principles”. Because when artificial intelligence finally emerges, it may be too late to control and correct it.

The Scottish Government has yesterday adopted a recommendation to the Scottish Parliament not to give its consent to the adoption of a law regulating Britain’s exit from the European Union. The division of competences between London and Edinburgh was assessed as being prejudicial.

According to the government’s document,” the Scottish government cannot recommend that Parliament approves the law in its current form”, fearing a centralisation of power in the hands of the British government administration and parliament in Westminster.

At the same time, it was pointed out that’ although the Scottish government regrets that the United Kingdom intends to leave the European Union, it accepts that certain preparations must be made, including on the preservation of a functioning legal system’.

At the same time, the Scottish authorities see a risk that these changes could be used to try the London Government to take over some of the competencies that have hitherto belonged to the European Union and, after leaving the Community, should be brought to the national governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The document also points out that the Scottish and Wales governments will jointly persuade Members to vote for amendments that change the wording of the law, which would allow them to agree to adopt legislation.

The consent of the national parliaments in Scotland and Wales is not necessary, but the lack of consent would exacerbate the tension between the central government and the national authorities.

However, the UK Scottish Minister for Scotland David Mundell estimated that the law adopted would ultimately increase the powers of local authorities.

On Monday morning, the British House of Commons voted on Tuesday night for a second reading of the UK’s exit law, which is intended to ensure regulatory stability after leaving the Community.

The new law is intended to repeal the 1972 United Kingdom’s accession to the EU, which introduced the principle of the primacy of Community law while transposing existing Community law into British law. They will then be analysed and revised consistently by the relevant ministries to adapt them to the new situation after Brexit.

Among the most controversial provisions, it is the right for ministers to make time-limited technical amendments to the provisions of the secondary legislation, for example, regulations, in order to adapt them to the situation after leaving the EU. This solution, known as the’ Henry VIII clause’, would allow changes to be made without Members having full control over the process.

The committee’s work phase and the third reading are scheduled for October when Members will also be able to make their amendments.

The United Kingdom launched the exit procedure from the European Union on 29 March this year and should leave the Community by the end of March 2019.

The UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution yesterday evening on the imposition of additional sanctions against North Korea.

The motion for a resolution was prepared by the US in response to the recent nuclear test conducted by North Korea. However, it’s softened version was put to the vote in order to secure the support of Russia and China.

Additional sanctions include the introduction of an oil supply limit for North Korea: up to 500,000 barrels from 1 October to the end of 2017, and up to 2 million barrels in 2018 and beyond. The new restrictions also introduce a total embargo on the supply of natural gas to North Korea and a ban on exports of North Korea’s textiles.

The new sanctions will not apply to the DPRK leader Kim Dzong Un and his closest associates.

In its original version, the US motion for a resolution included, for instance, a complete embargo on fuel supplies to North Korea and the freezing of Kim Dzong Un’s assets.

It is the ninth United Nations Security Council resolution on sanctions against North Korea in connection with its missile and nuclear programme.

North Korea announced on 3 September that an attempt to test a hydrogen charge for mounting on an ICBM intercontinental ballistic missile was “entirely successful”. The Pyongyang regime’s subsequent sixth nuclear test has provoked indignation and opposition from the international community.